Professionalism, respect for the
rights of others, good manners and right conduct are expected of all judicial
officers and employees, because the image of the judiciary is necessarily
mirrored in their actions.[1]

Five administrative cases against Judge
Julia A. Reyes (Judge Reyes), Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) of Pasig City, Branch 69 and one administrative case which Judge Reyes
filed against her Branch Clerk of Court Timoteo Migriño were consolidated and
referred to Justice Romulo S. Quimbo, consultant of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), for investigation, report and recommendation, by this
Court’s Resolutions of September 28, 2005[2]
and December 12, 2007.[3]

Records show that Judge Reyes’ whereabouts
have remained unknown.She was issued an
Authority to Travel to the United
States for the period from November 16 to 30, 2004. She appears to have left the country in
December 2004 but there is no record showing that she sought the Court’s permission
therefor or filed any leave of absence for December 2004.[4]

From an August 17, 2005 Certification from the Bureau of Immigration, the
only entry in its database relative to the travel of Judge Reyes was her
departure to an unknown destination through Korean Air Flight No. KE622 on December 28, 2004.[5]

Due to her absence, the
Court declared Judge Reyes as having waived her right to answer or comment on
the allegations against her and to adduce evidence.

I.A.M.NO.MTJ-06-1623(PROSECUTORROMANAR.REYESv.JUDGEJULIAA.REYES)

By letter-complaint of October 26, 2004,[6]
Assistant City Prosecutor Romana Reyes (Prosecutor Reyes), the public prosecutor
assigned to Branch 69, charged Judge Reyes with grave abuse of authority and/or
grave misconduct, the details of which follow:

On October 1, 2004 at past 6:00 p.m., Prosecutor Reyes accidentally met
Judge Reyes at the office of Police Inspector Jovita V. Icuin (Inspector Icuin),
the Chief of the Criminal Investigation Branch of the Pasig City Police
Station. Judge Reyes was there to inquire about her Branch Clerk of Court Timoteo
Migriño (Migriño)[7]
who was earlier arrested for alleged violation of Presidential Decree No. 1602
or the Anti-Gambling Law. When Judge Reyes was informed that Migriño was
already released on orders of Judge Jose Morallos, Judge Reyes asked Prosecutor
Reyes to conduct an inquest against Migriño for malversation on the basis of a
photocopy of an affidavit of a certain Ariel Nuestro, purportedly executed and
sworn to before Judge Reyes on September
15, 2004.[8]

Prosecutor Reyes informed Judge Reyes that the case of malversation may
not necessarily fall under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court[9] on
Arrest without Warrant and thus cannot be the subject of inquest. Prosecutor
Reyes explained that inquest could not be conducted as it was already past 6:00 p.m. whereas inquest proceedings
could be conducted only until 6:00 p.m.
unless authorized by the City Prosecutor. She added that since the crime was allegedly
committed in 2003, Migriño would have to undergo preliminary investigation.[10]Prosecutor Reyes continued:

When
she heard that if inquest is conducted he will be released for preliminary
investigation, she was fuming mad and directed me to conduct the preliminary
investigation right then and there. It was really a surprise that a judge,
a former prosecutor at the Rizal Provincial Prosecution Office, would direct me
to conduct preliminary investigation at the station without giving the
respondent (Mr. Migrino), at least the mandatory 10-day period within which to
prepare for an intelligent answer/counter-affidavit.

She insisted that Mr. Migrino be
detained on the weekend and the police detained him. He was the subject of
inquest on October 4, 2004,
Monday and was ordered release for preliminary investigation by the City
Prosecutor.

x x x x

On October 5 and 6, 2004 I was not
able to appear during the hearing of criminal cases in her sala but I made it a
point to inform the Court by calling, through cellphone, one of her staff on
the mornings of October 5 and 6. I was having severe headache and chest
discomfort.

On October 11, 2004, I appeared at her sala to
discharge my official function as public prosecutor assigned in her Court.
Before the hearing started, she asked for my Medical Certificate and I
explained that to be candid, I did not personally see a doctor but called [the
doctor] to inform him of my condition and I was advised to rest and take my
regular medication. Surprisingly, and to my embarrassment, without any case
for contempt filed and without being included in the day’s calendar, she
brought up the incident of October
1, 2004.I explained to her that unless I had been
authorized by the City Prosecutor or Chief-Inquest, I could not conduct inquest
and inquest proceedings are being held in my position as a Prosecutor under
the Department of Justice. She insisted that I was “there as the Prosecutor
assigned to this Court and who is assigned at the same sala and you refused to
conduct an inquest” forgetting her constitutional law that there is separation
of powers among the three branches of government – legislative, executive and
the judiciary.

She issued in open court an order
requiring me to explain in writing within twenty-four (24) hours why I should
not be cited for contempt for my refusal to conduct the inquest on October 1, 2004. I was
all the more surprised when she gave the following sweeping statement in open
court:

“Don’t worry Prosec, I will not order your arrest today,
because I know that the Pasig City Police Officer at the Pasig Police Station,
because your house is located in front of the Pasig City Station, there is no one
who will arrest you. I will still coordinate with the office of Gen. Aglipay to
send me a police officer who will take custody of you pending contempt
proceedings.”

The above-quoted statement, lifted
from the transcript of stenographic notes of October 11, 2004 which is hereto
attached as Annex “A” to “A-5”, only shows that she has already a pre-judgment
of the contempt charge and no explanation, even if submitted, will convince her
to stop from declaring me with contempt.

I was hospitalized at the MedicalCity on the night of October 11, 2004 until October 14, 2004 due to
chest pain and the Court was informed of this fact. However[,] on October 13, 2004 when I
was still confined, respondent issued an Order in open court stating:

“ x x x without any valid
explanation except for the word that she is presently confined at the hospital,
which is hearsay at the moment, in which case the same is just noted by the
court. So for her failure to attend today’s proceedings, despite notice, as
well as for her failure to attend the proceedings yesterday as well as on
October 5 and 6 without any valid explanation, and for her failure to give any
explanation after the lapse of 24 hours from the time she was ordered to show
cause why she should not be cited in contempt in open court last October 11,
2004, let warrant of arrest issue against the said Public Prosecutor. x x x Bail
is set at P1,000.00 per case in which there is a total of 119 cases delayed
as a result of her absencesince October
5 and October 6 as well as yesterday, October 12 and today, October 13. That
means a bail of P119,000.00 as well as for two (2) counts of apparent
contempt which consist of misbehavior of an officer of the Court in the performance
of her official duties as well as for improper conduct tending directly or
indirectly to impede, obstruct, and degrade the administration of justice to
which bail is set at P25,000.00 each, to set an example to the public
especially, since she is actually the Public Prosecutor presently assigned to
this Court who committed such apparent act of indirect contempt.”[11]
(Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)

In another letter dated October 29,
2004,[12]
Prosecutor Reyes informed the OCA that during the October 27, 2004 hearing for
the issuance of a temporary restraining order in connection with her petition
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus docketed as SCA-2732 before the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, four police officers served a warrant of
arrest[13]
purportedly issued on October 11, 2004 by Judge Reyes pertaining to Criminal
Case Nos. 02164-02173, all entitled “People v. Prosecutor Romana R. Reyes.”

Verification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
MeTC of Pasig City revealed, however, that there was no pending case against
Prosecutor Reyes and that the particular case numbers pertained to cases against
10 individuals for offenses ranging from violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang
6 to Reckless Imprudence resulting in Damage to Property.[14]

Prosecutor Reyes’ travails did not
stop there, however. On October
27, 2004, at around 10:30
a.m., she received copies of two Orders of October 11 and 13, 2004 of
Judge Reyes directing Prosecutor Reyes in the later Order, to

x x x show cause within 24 hours
from receipt of this Order why she should not be cited in contempt for her
failure to submit her explanation to date and for her failure to attend the
proceedings of this Court without any explanation.

Considering the gravity of her
responsibility as a Public Prosecutor, let
warrant issue for her arrest.Bail is
set atP2,000.00 per case, or a total of TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT
THOUSAND PESOS ONLY (P238,000.00).[15](Emphasis and capitalization in the
original; underscoring supplied)

On December 13, 2004, Prosecutor Reyes wrote
another letter[16] to the
OCA charging Judge Reyes with Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct,
Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment or Order, and Gross Ignorance of the Law
or Procedure, as follows:

On
December 7, 2004, I arrived at the court room of MTC-Pasig City Branch 69 at
about 8:30 a.m. to discharge my duties as the trial prosecutor of the Branch.
The hearing has not started, the Presiding Judge was not there yet and the
litigants have not been allowed to enter the courtroom. Hearing of cases on the
Court does not promptly start at 8:30
a.m. but always been the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. as the Presiding Judge, Julia A.
Reyes, usually arrive past 8:30 a.m. and when she arrive[s], she still order[s]
the installation of her microphone and computer. In the meantime, litigants are
not allowed to enter the courtroom but have to wait outside until they are
allowed entry by the staff.

I
reviewed the court records to know if the parties had been notified of the
scheduled hearings. After the recitation of the Centennial Prayer and before
the calendar of cases were called, Judge Julia Reyes called my attention and
said that there was an Order of the Court for me to explain my failure to
appear on October 5, 6, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26 and 27 and up to now, I have
not submitted my explanation.I stood up
and politely explained to her that the incidents she was referring to was the
subject of the case I filed against her for Certiorari, Prohibition & Mandamus,
before the Regional Trial Court – Pasig City and there was an Order issued, a
copy of the Order had been served on her, that any and all warrant of arrest
issued by her would not be enforced and/or implemented by the police
agencies.She did not hear my reason
and said that this is a new order and is not covered by the Order of Hon. Celso
Lavina and she ordered that I be detained for one (1) day at the PasigCity
Police Headquarters.I moved for a
five (5) minute recess to make a call to my lawyer and to fix myself as I was
having palpitation then.She denied my
motion and ordered the start of the scheduled hearing of cases.She ordered the police officers to lock the
door of the courtroom and not to let anyone go out or come in.This was the first time, during my assignment
at her branch, that the door of the court was locked and nobody is allowed to
leave the room or go inside. Though not convenient, as I was thinking of my
health then, and the humiliation I felt in, again, being declared in contempt
in open court and ordered detained, I continued to discharge my duties as a
trial prosecutor of the branch until after the more than 40 cases had been
called.

After
the hearing of criminal cases and the case of contempt was called against Max
Soliven et al., I was informed by PO1 Sandy Galino, her security escort, that
the police officers whom they have called for assistance were already outside
the courtoom and will be bringing me to the police station.They would not allow me to leave the place
unless I go with them at the Headquarters.When I was about to be escorted out of the court room, my lawyer, Atty.
Hans Santos and my sister, Asst. Pros. Paz Yson, came and was bringing with
them a certified copy of the Order of Hon. Celso Lavina dated November 22, 2004
stating that any and all warrants issued by Judge Julia Reyes will not be
enforced by any police agencies.My
lawyer showed the Order to PO1 Sandy Galino and a certain PO1 Villarosa and
they said that they are getting orders from Judge Julia Reyes.My lawyer then asked them if they have a
written Order from the Court, or a Warrant for my Arrest or a Commitment Order
but they replied in the negative.My
lawyer further asked them if they are detaining me and they said no.

x
x x x

On
or about 12:00noon of December 9, 2004, I have just alighted from a
car and she was standing infront of the building when she saw me.She immediately followed me and shouted
“Arrest her! Arrest her! To the guards on duty at the entrance of the building.In the presence of so many persons in the
lobby and in high pitch she made calls, through her cell phone, to several
police officers telling them that she caught an escaped convict, a fugitive
from justice and needs a battery of police officers to make the arrest.I warned her to be careful with her language
considering that I did not escape but was released by Hon. Executive Judge Jose
Morallos upon presentation of the Order dated November 22, 2004 of Hon. Judge Celso Lavina, RTC-PasigBr.
71.She continued, in the presence
of people in the Lobby who had converged to see what was causing the commotion,
that I am an escaped convict and should be detained at the PasigCity
Police Headquarters.She further
said that it was Judge Jose Morallos who facilitated my escape last Tuesday, December 7, 2004.

x
x x x

While
questioning the propriety of the order of Direct Contempt, considering that
there is an order of November 22, 2004 stating that any and all warrants she
issued will not be enforced or implemented, and that she has to issue the
necessary Commitment Order for my detention, she slapped with me another seven
(7) days of detention for Direct Contempt.

x
x x x

At
about 6:00 p.m., the
Sheriff of Regional Trial Court-Pasig City, Branch 71 arrived and served a Writ
of Preliminary Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction with an attached Order
dated December 9, 2004
issued by Hon Judge Celso Lavina declaring my detention illegal but the
Headquarters would not release me until after they have conferred with their
superior officers.After conferring with
the higher officials, I was finally released, over the written objection of
Judge Julia Reyes in the copy of the Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Mandatory
Injunction and Court Order dated December 9, 2004, from the Pasig City Police Headquarters
at about 7:00 p.m.

By Complaint of October 16, 2004,[18] Migriño
and Domingo S. Cruz charged Judge Reyes with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Oppression,
Abuse of Authority, and Illegal Arrest and Detention, the details of which
follow:

In July 2003, not long after her appointment as Presiding Judge, Judge
Reyes began to exhibit “unexplained prejudice and hostility” towards Migriño.
In fact, without any reason at all, Judge Reyes told Atty. Reynaldo Bautista,
the MeTC Clerk of Court, that Migriño would be detailed at the Office of the Clerk
of Court.[19]

On several occasions, the latest of
which was on August 24, 2004, she barred Migriño from entering the court
premises and the staff room. During lunch break on October 1, 2004, Migriño,
Deputy Sheriff Joel K. Agliam and Dandy T. Liwag were arrested without warrant upon
orders of Judge Reyes as they were allegedly caught in flagrante delicto
playing “tong-its.” Police Officer 1 Sandy
Galino (PO1 Galino), the security officer of Judge Reyes, arrested them and
brought them to the Pasig City Police Station where they were detained by
virtue of the affidavits[20]
of PO1 Galino and Judge Reyes.[21]

When an Order of Release[22]
was issued by Judge Morallos after the three posted bail, Judge Reyes tried to prevent
their release and insisted that she had a complaint against Migriño for malversation
of public funds, infidelity in the custody of document and/or qualified theft
and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act[23]
allegedly committed in November 2002, and presented the Affidavit[24]
of Ariel Nuestro and the Joint Affidavit[25]
she executed with court employees Remedios Diaz (Remedios) and Alma Santiano.

Complainant Atty. Domingo S. Cruz
(Atty. Cruz), counsel of Migriño, et al., intervened and demanded from Inspector
Icuin the immediate release of his clients since there was already an Order of Release.Atty. Cruz and Prosecutor Reyes also explained
to Judge Reyes that Migriño could not be detained on the basis of an alleged
offense that occurred in 2002 yet, and that the alleged offense was not covered
by the rule on warrantless arrest.[26]Migriño and Atty. Cruz continued:

15.
…Judge [Reyes] insisted that complainant Migriño must not be released as the
case is covered by the rule on warrantless arrest, the alleged offense of
malversation having been allegedly discovered only recently by respondent Judge
and staff, specifically at 4:30 P.M. of 01 October 2004. She then told Pros.
Reyes to conduct an immediate Inquest/preliminary investigation.

16. It must be noted and emphasized
that Nuestro subscribed and swore to his Sinumpaang Salaysay before respondent
Judge way back on September
15, 2004, and it could not be said that the alleged offense of
malversation of public funds was discovered only at 4:30 P.M. of October 01, 2004. What is certain is that respondent Judge timed the alleged discovery to
suit her purpose…[27]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Unable to convince Judge Reyes, Atty.
Cruz left the office of Inspector Icuin, but returned shortly with a warning
that he would hold them responsible for illegal arrest, arbitrary detention and
abuse of authority unless Migriño was immediately released. Inspector Icuin
finally ordered the release of Migriño.

Migriño stayed in jail from October 1, 2004, a Friday,
until he was released on October
4, 2004. Judge Reyes was determined to send Migriño back to jail,
however, by means of her contempt powers. In her October 4, 2004 Order, she stated:

x
x x Timoteo Migrino, Clerk of Court, Branch 69, Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasig
City, is hereby ordered to show cause within twelve (12) hours from receipt of
this order why he should not be cited in contempt for the following acts:(1) illegal gambling during office hours
within the Court premises (2) infidelity in the custody of documents, (3)
qualified theft and/or malversation for misappropriation of the amount of
PHP10,000.00 entrusted to him for “deposit” by one Ariel Nuestro in a criminal
case filed before this Court, (4) for violation ofR.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, among others.He is
likewise ordered to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt for
openly defying to submit to undersigned with respect to her complaint before
the police authorities for the said crimes and/or offenses which defiance
appear to be “improper conduct tending directly or indirectly, to impede,
obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice” under Rule 71, Sec. 3(d) of
the Rules of Court.

Set the hearing of this case on October 8, 2004 at 2:30 P.M. and said respondent is
directed to make his explanation on said date and time in open court with
warning that should he fail to attend said hearing despite due notice a warrant
for arrest shall be issued.

The Process Server of this Court
with the assistance of a Sheriff of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City,
is directed to send a copy of this Order by personal service to respondent
TIMOTEO A. MIGRINO.Any officer of the law is likewise
directed to assist said Process Server in the service of this Order to said
respondent and is specifically directed to take custody of said
respondent should he refuse to receive this Order and bring the same
to this Court on October 8, 2004 at 2:00 P.M.[28] (Capitalization
in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Significantly, while in the said Order
of October 4, 2004,
Judge Reyes found Atty. Cruz, Prosecutor Reyes, Inspector Icuin and PO3 Jimenez
to have also committed contumacious acts, she singled out Migriño and directed
him to explain why he should not be declared in contempt of court.

On October 8, 2004, Judge Reyes issued
another Order[29] giving
her process server, the MeTC sheriff and any officer of the law blanket
authority to “take custody of [Migriño] should he refuseto receive this
Order and bring him to this Court on October 11, 13, 14 & 15, 2004 at 2:00
P.M.”Complainants further narrated:

41. To show that the respondent
judge is using her contempt powers as a bludgeon to clobber her perceived
enemies, instead of using the same as a necessary tool for preserving the
integrity of the court, the respondent issued another Order dated October 14,
2004 ordering complainant Migriño to show cause why “he should not be cited for
at least 2,330 acts of indirect
contempt”.Repeat, two thousand three hundred thirty.A copy of this Order is attached hereto as
Annex “J”.

The tyranny and despotism of the respondent judge is crystal
clear in the following statements in said Order of October 14, 2004 (Annex “J”):

Moreover, respondent committed at
least 1,510 acts of indirect contempt with respect to the case of People vs.
Marcos Rivera (Crim. Case No. 36172) which remains pending in the docket of
this court to date, when he failed to act on or set for arraignment to date,
the said case filed herein on April
29, 1998.Considering that a
total of around 1,510 working days has lapsed from the said date of filing of
said case up to the time that said respondent was barred from entering the
court premises and the staff room on August 24, 2004, herein respondent is
hereby ordered to show cause why he should not be cited for 1,510 acts of
indirect contempt for all the working days that he failed to act on said case
which appears to remain pending in the docket of this court to date.”

Even assuming for purposes of argument that the failure of
the respondent to set for arraignment the aforementioned case is contumacious,
it was one continuing act of omission,
not 1,510 separate acts of commission.[30]
(Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)

By verified[31]
letter-complaint of March 11, 2004,[32]
Judge Reyes was charged by complainants Armi M. Flordelisa et al. who are court
employees at Branch 69, with the following acts: (1) residing in chambers; (2)
borrowing money from staff; (3) instructing the stenographer to collect a
minimum amount for ex-parte cases;
(4) frequently bringing some of her staff to her nighttime gimmick; (5)
unethical conduct; (6) conduct unbecoming a lady judge; (7) unfriendliness to
litigants; (8) anti-public service; (9) inability to control emotions during
hearing; (10) uttering invectives in front of staff and lawyers; (11)
conducting staff meeting in an unsightly attire; and(12) gross inefficiency/laziness.

According to complainants, it was of
public knowledge at the Pasig City Hall of Justice that Judge Reyes was
residing in her chambers where a big aparador she had placed therein was
eventually removed after three Supreme Court lawyers investigated the matter. She continued to sleep in the chambers after
going out for evening “gimmicks” with some members of her staff. She would
usually be fetched by a certain Col. Miranda at 12 midnight and would return at 4:00 a.m.[33]

On two separate occasions in May 2003,
Judge Reyes instructed complainant Juliet Villar (Juliet), branch legal researcher,
to act as her co-maker in her loan applications.Within the same period, Judge Reyes, who
allegedly needed money for an ID picture, borrowed P500 from Juliet who was
forced to borrow the amount from Miguelito Limpo (Limpo), branch process
server, which amount remained unpaid as of the filing of their complaint.[34]Judge Reyes also borrowed P20,000 from
the “branch process server” who, however, did not execute any affidavit out of
fear,[35]
as relayed by Maria Concepcion Lucero (Maria Concepcion), branch in-charge of
civil cases.[36]When Juliet informed Limpo of the plan of
some staff members to petition for the removal of Judge Reyes, Limpo remarked, “Bago
nyo ipatanggal yun, hintayin nyo munang bayaran ako. Inutangan ako nyan ng P20,000.00,
isinanla ko pa yung alahas para lang may maipautang sa kanya.”[37]

Complainants stated that Judge Reyes habitually
invited her staff to go with her in night “gimmicks” from 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. the following day, without regard to working days.
This practice hampered the delivery of judicial services, as the employees who
went out with her the previous night either went on leave or arrived late the
following day.[40]

On December 23, 2003, upon the persistent
request of Judge Reyes, Juliet joined her and company in a comedy bar in Quezon
City and stayed there until 4:00 a.m. of December 24, 2003. Judge Reyes brought her
employees to their respective homes and then went to sleep in her chambers.[41]

Maria Concepcion, in another
affidavit, stated that on January
2, 2004, Judge Reyes repeatedly invited the staff for lunch at her residence.
While inside her house, Judge Reyes insistently
gave her a glass of red wine, from which she pretended to take a sip, after
which Judge Reyes consumed the remainder. Judge Reyes joined the rest of the staff at
the sala where they consumed “gin
pomelo.”[42]

Judge Reyes exhibited conduct
unbecoming a judge for repeatedly inviting her staff and other court employees to
join her to a drinking spree in the courtroom after office hours on three
consecutive Fridays in February 2004. On March 2, 2004, Juliet arrived at the office at around 7:00 a.m. and saw Judge Reyes about to
leave the office. Juliet was later informed by the guards and janitors that they
saw an inebriated Judge Reyes sleeping on the bench outside the office and
found empty bottles of alcoholic drinks in the garbage can.[45]

Judge Reyes was also unfriendly to
litigants. On January 23,
2004 during the inventory of cases, as a litigant attempted to verify
the status of his case, Judge Reyes suddenly remarked, “Nag-iimbentaryo
kami, bawal mag-verify. Pag hindi
ka umalis, iko-contempt kita!” However, when an employee from
another branch referred a couple to Judge Reyes for solemnization of marriage,
Judge Reyes ordered the stopping of the inventory to give way to it.On March 4, 2004, Judge Reyes sent Leah a text message advising
her to reset the hearings as she was unavailable, but upon being informed by
Remedios that there was a marriage to be solemnized that day, Judge Reyes
immediately arrived and even attended the wedding reception.In the months of December 2003 and January
2004, Judge Reyes was able to solemnize 16[46]
and 14[47]
marriages, respectively.

Complainants claimed that Judge Reyes
was anti-public service.She instructed
the staff to lock the door entrance to the room occupied by the staff and not
to answer phone calls during court hearings even if there were employees in the
staff room to attend to calls and queries.[48]

Judge Reyes lacked the ability to
control her emotions during hearings. In one hearing, she failed to maintain
her composure and stormed out of the room while Assistant City Prosecutor
Fernando Dumpit was still talking.[49]Judge Reyes hurled invectives in front of the
staff and lawyers. On October
2, 2003, while with a lawyer friend from the Office of the
Solicitor General, she remarked in front of her staff, “Alam mo na ang dami
intriga dito; nireport ba naman
na nakatira ako dito, ano kaya masama dun? Alam ko staff ko rin
nagsumbong eh, PUTANG INA NILA, PUTANG INA TALAGA NILA!”[50]

Several times, Judge Reyes conducted
staff meetings wearing T-shirt, slippers and faded “maong” folded a
little below the knee, as if she was in her house.Oftentimes, she would wear the same clothes
she wore the previous day, which showed that she resided in the chambers.[51]

Judge Reyes was lazy and inefficient, as
she delegated decision-writing to Juliet. Since her appointment, she was able
to promulgate only three or four decisions of her own writing.

Complainants thus requested the conduct of judicial audit to determine her
work output.[52]

1.I was jailed on the strength of a warrant of
arrest dated October 8, 2004 issued by Judge Julia A. Reyes in connection
with the ten (10) counts of Indirect Contempt of Court charges which she had
initiated against me for gross misconduct in office and insubordination;

2.The warrant of arrest of October 8, 2004 stemmed from
my failure to attend the hearing of an Indirect Contempt of Court charge she
filed against me, then about to be heard on October 8, 2004 at 2:30 o’clock in
the afternoon where I am supposed to explain my side;

x
x x x

5.I was served with a copy of the show cause Order dated
October 4, 2004 signed by Judge Reyes where I was informed that I committed
acts constituting contempt of court as defined by Rule 71, Section 3 (a) and
(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.On the basis of said show cause order, I was also directed by Judge
Reyes to appear on October 8, 2040 at 2:30 pm in court and to make further
explanation with warning that should I fail to attend the hearing on said date
despite due notice, a warrant for my arrest shall be issued by the court.Plain copy of the Order dated October
4, 2004is herewith attached and duly marked as Annex “A”;

6.For fear of
being arrested, I did not attend the hearing of October 8, 2004, despite
notice, and hence, as earlier stated, a warrant of arrest dated October 8, 2004
was issued by Judge Reyes against me;

7.I was apprehended and confined at the Pasig City Police
Station, at Pariancillo, Kapasigan, PasigCity to my great damage
and prejudice and that of my family;

x x x x

11.What
is worse is that Judge Reyes fixed the bail for my temporary liberty at two
hundred thousand (P250,000.00) pesos which to my mind is quite excessive and
violative of my constitutional right to bail;

x
x x x

14.Surprisingly,
the warrant of arrest dated October 8, 2004 issued by Judge Reyes supposedly
carries a docket number starting from Case Number 02154 up to and including
02163 which correspond to ten (10) counts of Indirect Contempt of Court.However, the said case numbers does not pertain
to a person of Armie M. Flordeliza, nor with a case of Contempt of Court.Please see Certification signed by Atty. Reynaldo V. Bautista, Clerk of Court
IV of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasig City –
Annex “B,” and a copy of the Warrant
of Arrest dated October 8, 2004 – Annex “C”;

x x x x

21.Be it noted that in November 8, 2004, herein
complainant filed a Motion for Reduction
of Bail (Annex “D”) from P250,000.00 to P50,000.00 in cash which was
not acted upon; the reason why the herein complainant suffered for a longer
period inside the detention cell;

22.On the same date (November 8, 2004), a Subpoena (Annex “D-1”)
was served upon the herein complainant alleging that a hearing will be held in
November 9, 10, 11 and 12.However,
Judge Reyes never conduct[ed] the hearings in November 10, 11 and 12, 2004
which constitute an oppression and violation of human rights and grave
misconduct;

23.In November 16, 2004, the 12th day the
herein complainant was under the detention cell, was the day that I was
released by posting a cash bond of P50,000.00 granted by Hon. Divina Gracia
Lopez-Peliño, Pairing Judge of Branch 69, Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasig
City as evidenced by Official Receipt
No. 21065408 (Annex “E”); Order dated November 16, 2004 (Annex “F”); and Order
of Release (Annex “G”)[.](Emphasis in the original;
underscoring supplied)[54]

IV. A.M.NO.MTJ-06-1627(ANDREEK.LAGDAMEOv.JUDGEJULIAA.REYES)

Complainant Andree Lagdameo (Andree) is
the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 42030 for physical injuries pending
before Branch 69. The case was originally set for promulgation of judgment on May 19, 2004 but was
cancelled and repeatedly reset – to July 13, 2004, September 14, 2004 and November 23, 2004. Andree thus filed an Urgent Motion to Set Promulgation of Judgment,[55]furnishing the OCA a copy thereof, which step, Andree believed, “must
have courted [the judge’s] ire.”

Judge Reyes moved the promulgation date
from November 23, 2004
to October 20, 2004,
only to reset the same to October
16, 2004. After eight postponements,[56] the
judgment was finally promulgated on December 7, 2004 during which Criminal Case No. 42030 was first
in the calendar of cases. Andree narrated:

x x x x

However, before
the start of court proceedings that day, there was a courtroom drama which
unfolded before the surprised eyes of all persons then inside the
courtroom.The Honorable Judge Julia
A. Reyes ordered the arrest and detention of Prosecutor Romana Reyes.Judge Reyes ordered her personal
close-in-security, whom I later came to know to be PO1 Sandy Galino, and PO2
Rolando Lavadia, to implement her order.I was seated on the first bench and I had a clear view and could clearly
hear the proceedings.I heard Judge
Reyes forbid Prosecutor Reyes from calling her lawyer under pain of another day
of detention.I heard Judge Reyes
further order PO1 Galino and PO2 Lavadia to close the doors of the courtroom
and to prevent Prosecutor Reyes from leaving the same.

6.Judge Reyes then proceeded to order Leah Palaspas to
promulgate judgment in my case, Criminal Case No. 42030.I was so shocked by the intemperate and
derogatory words Judge Reyes used to describe my person in the aforesaid
judgment, so much so that I left the courtroom immediately after the reading
because I was so afraid that my face would mirror my emotions and I might be
cited for contempt, especially after witnessing Judge Reyes’ actions toward
Prosecutor Romana Reyes.I am a mere
layman and I must indeed look puny to the high and mighty Judge Julia A. Reyes.

I
was the complainant, not the
accused, in the case and I cannot understand why the judge exhibited such kind
of hostility against me in the judgment just promulgated.

7.I then waited for the termination of the court proceedings,
to request for a copy of the decision since I wanted to consult a lawyer
regarding Judge Reyes’ affront on my person.I was barred from re-entering the court room by PO1 Sandy Galino, the
armed personal security of Judge Reyes, pursuant to her orders.

x
x x x

9. I then went back
to the courtroom of Branch 69, and found Leah Palaspas and Alma Santiano, both
employees of MTC Branch 69, together with PO1 Galino and PO2 Lavadia, sitting
in the now empty courtroom.I could hear
the raised voice of Judge Reyes emanating from her chambers.I asked Leah Palaspas for a copy of the
decision, and to examine and photocopy some documents in the file folder of
Criminal Case No. 42030.She told me to
wait as the folder was in the chamber of Judge Reyes.I pointed to her that the decision in this
case had just been promulgated this morning and logically, the folder would be
in the pile in front of her.She
insisted that it was in the judge’s chambers, and for me to wait.

10.I
then stood and waited for about another half hour in the corridor fronting the
courtroom of Branch 69 after which, I again approached Leah Palaspas regarding
my request.She called a co-employee,
whom I later came to know to be Ms. Josefina Catacutan to accompany me to the
photocopying machine.While waiting in
line, I noticed that the decision promulgated that morning was not in the
file.I pointed this out to Ms.
Catacutan who proposed that we return to Ms. Palaspas and ask for a copy.

11.Accompanied
by Ms. Catacutan, I returned to the Branch 69 courtroom where we found Ms.
Palaspas standing in the corridor.I
pointed out to her that a copy of the decision was not in the file.She protested that it was almost noontime and
that I should just come back in the afternoon.I pointed out to her that it was still ten minutes to twelve and it was
just a matter of handing a copy of the decision to Ms. Catacutan, and besides,
I had been waiting since early morning.

12.Ms.
Leah Palaspas turned her back on me and stepped into the courtroom where Judge
Reyes was sitting with Alma Santino, PO1 Galino and PO2 Lavadia and declared
“Eto ho Judge, las doce na ho e.”

13.I
followed Ms. Palaspas inside the courtroom but had hardly stepped inside when I
stopped in my tracks as Judge Reyes shouted “Don’t try me, come back at 1:00 PM, GET OUT! I was so shocked at the arrogance of Judge
Reyes and the way she shouted at me that I turned on my heels and left.

14.On
my way out – probably out of sheer frustration at the way the judge treats
people who happened to have business in her court – I commented to Ms. Palaspas
who was standing beside me:“O baka ma
contempt pa ako” and continued walking away.

15.Either
Ms. Palaspas told the respondent judge about my comment, or the judge herself
overheard me, when I reached the area in front of the door of the staff room PO1
Sandy Galino suddenly grabbed my arm and prevented me from moving.When I turned my head, I saw Judge Julia
Reyes in the lobby fronting her courtroom wagging her finger in the air and
shouting, ‘HULIHIN NIYO YAN, IKULONG NINYO YAN!” – thus letting loose her armed
gorilla on a hapless victim like me.

16.I
instinctively struggled to free myself from the grip of PO1 Sandy Galino, all
the while asking Judge Julia Reyes, “Bakit, hindi naman kita sinagot ah” who all
the while was viewing the scene with a smirk of satisfaction on her face.

17.I
was able to momentarily free my hand and was able to call a lawyer friend on my
mobile phone who then advised me to demand for any sort of written order to
justify my arrest and detention.I was
also advised to demand that the arresting officers identify themselves and the
unit to which they belong.PO1 Galino
replied “A wala, basta utos ni Judge ito doon ka na magpaliwanag at
magtanong!”

18.A
uniformed police officer carrying an armalite rifle, whose name I was not able
to get, then arrived.PO1 Sandy Galino
addressed the latter:“Pare, pag pumalag,
barilin mo.”I never imagined that I
– a simply citizen without any clout; a weak, educated, woman who merely sought
the assistance of our courts to redress a perceived grievance – would be
treated like a common criminal in this fair Republic of ours!

I
then continued to demand a written order regarding my arrest but Galino
repeated, “Hindi na raw kailangan, sabe ni Judge” and proceeded to forcibly
bring me out of the Justice Hall.When
we reached the lobby I tried to go up to the office of Executive Judge Morallos
but PO1 Galino pulled me down the stairs.

x
x x x

The
fact of my arrest was then entered into the Blotter of the Pasig Station on
Page 0393, Entry No. 1781, Date:Dec. 7,
2004 Time 12:30 PM which reads as follows:

“Brought-in

PO1 Sandy Galino y Abuyog,
33 years old, married of this station brought in one Andree Lagdameo y
Kirkwood, legal age, widow, res of 237 Marne St. San Juan Metro Mla. for direct
contempt of court issued by Hon. Judge Julia Reyes of MTC B69 PasigCity.
Order will follow.”

(Attached as Annex “B”)

x x x x

20.At
5:00 PM of December 7, 2004, Atty. Atencia again demanded my release from
detention since it was now the close of office hours and Judge Julia Reyes had
not issued any commitment order.Col.
Galvan again refused and insisted that he was following the orders of Judge
Julia Reyes.

x x x x

22.I
was finally released from detention after 24 hours.My release is entered on Page 0397 of the
Pasig Police Blotter under Entry No. 1799, Date:December 08, 2004, Time: 12:30PM which reads
as follows:

“Released

In relationto Entry 1781 dated Dec. 7, 2004 one Andree Lagdameo was
released from the custody of this station physically and financially unmolested
as attested by her signature below.

Note: Detained w/o written commitment order and
released w/o written released order.

Andree supplemented[58]
her December 22, 2004 Complaint[59] to
allege that she finally received a copy of the Decision[60] in
Criminal Case No. 42030 on December 16, 2004, several days after she was
illegally detained, and only after she wrote a letter to Judge Reyes,
furnishing then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and the OCA a copy thereof.[61]

When she read the Decision, she was
shocked on noting that Judge Reyes used very insulting language in referring to
her as the therein private complainant.Judge Reyes wrote that “[j]udging from the demeanor and character of the
accused who appears to be a quiet man with a pleasant disposition and that of
the private complainant who looks loud, rash and even vulgar in language in her
dealings with the court personnel herein, this Court finds the version of the
accused to be more credible.”[62]Judge Reyes made a misrepresentation for she
merely relied on the records in writing the decision as she never had the
chance to hear the testimonies of the parties since Judge Alex Quiroz was the
presiding judge when the case was tried.

V. A.M.NO. P-09-2693 (TIMOTEOA.MIGRIÑO v.JUDGEJULIAA.REYES)

In an undated letter[63]
received by the OCA on October
4, 2004, Judge Reyes recommended that Migriño be separated from the
service on charges of illegal gambling during office hours, qualified theft
and/or infidelity in the custody of documents, and violation of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act.

Upon the recommendation of the OCA, it
appearing that this case emanated from the same incident of illegal gambling obtaining
in A.M. No. MTJ-06-1624, the Court, by Resolution of September 28, 2005,[64]
ordered the consolidation of the two cases. Hence, the factual background of
this case is reflected in the earlier discussed A.M. No. MTJ-06-1624.

On February 18, 2004 at around 5:00 p.m., police officers arrived at Sebastian’s
residence and served on him and his wife Alicia (the couple) warrants of arrest[66]
issued by Judge Reyes on October
28, 2003. After an overnight
detention at Camp Caringal in Quezon City, the couple was presented to the branch
clerk of court, and learned that the warrants of arrest were issued due to
their failure to appear in court on October 28, 2003 as directed in an August
15, 2003 Order[67] which
was not received by them or their counsel, Atty. Jaime Vibar.

A perusal of the August 15, 2003 Order reveals that the
same suffers from grave infirmity.It
reads:

The unsigned Order dated May 9, 2000 is reiterated as
follows:

“Accused through counsel, having
been [sic] filed a Manifestation and
Request for Remarking and Formal Offer of Exhibits.” The Prosecution is given
five (5) days from receipt thereof within which to make its comment thereto.”

Set
the same for hearing on October
28, 2003, at 8:130 [sic]
A.M.

Send
copies of this Order to the parties. (Emphasis supplied)

The prior
Order being unsigned, there was no factual or legal reason for Judge Reyes to
reiterate the same and set the case for further hearing, notably since the case
had long been submitted for decision.

Judge Reyes did not lift the warrant
of arrest, even after Atty. Vibar filed, pursuant to the October 28, 2003
Order, a Motion for Reconsideration, Compliance and Entry of Appearance.[68]

At the promulgation of judgment on September 7, 2004, the branch
clerk of court read only the decretal portion of the decision convicting the
couple. Atty. Vibar requested a copy of
the decision but Judge Reyes replied that the decision had not yet been printed
but she could give him a diskette which Atty. Vibar refused.After declaring that she would later
re-promulgate the judgment and that the couple should stay in court, Judge
Reyes started calling out the other cases. Not wanting to be part of the irregularity and
due to other pressing commitments, Atty. Vibar left. At around 11:40 a.m. inside the chambers, Judge Reyes read the
judgment from a computer screen without giving the couple a written copy[69]
or computer print-out.

The couple raised on appeal that the trial
court failed to comply with the mandate of Rule 120[70]
of the Rules of Court and Section 14[71]
of Article VIII of the Constitution requiring that the decision must be written
and signed by the judge with a clear statement of the facts and the law on
which the decision is based.[72]

THE EVALUATION OF JUSTICE ROMULO S. QUIMBO

By Consolidated Report of June 27, 2004,[73] Retired
Justice Romulo S. Quimbo evaluated the first five administrative cases, viz:

Migrino presented a certificate that
there is no case against him pending with the MetropolitanTrialCourtofPasigCity.
He admits, however, that a case for illegal gambling was filed against him.
That the same may have been dismissed does not totally exempt him from
administrative liability considering that gambling within the court’s premises
is proscribed by Administrative Circular No. 1-99[74]
issued by the Supreme Court. His act of playing “tong-its” with two others
within the court premises makes him punishable under said circular.

x x x x

The
acts which appear to have been committed by respondent Judge against Ass’t.
City Prosecutor R[o]m[a]na A. Reyes and Andree K. Lagdameo were clearly
unjustified and unwarranted. The respondent Judge’s orders to declare them
in contempt and issuing warrants for their arrest betray an abysmal lack of
knowledge of the rules governing contempt. Her fixing an atrociously
excessive bail is a clear manifestation that respondent Judge wanted to exhibit
her authority and fixing such a ridiculous amount of bail was designed to
prevent the complainants from obtaining temporary release. Her obvious
ignorance of the rule governing contempt and the jurisprudence that mandates
that it be exercised as a protective not a vindictive power makes us wonder
how, despite the rigorous screening of candidates by the Judicial and Bar
Council (JBC), a “lemon” such as the respondent Judge managed to be nominated
for appointment to such exalted position. How she was able to elude the
psychiatric and psychological tests under which she went is remarkable for it
resulted in the appointment of one grossly ignorant of the law and more
importantly devoid of the temperament required of a judicial arbiter.

In the two cases mentioned above
(A.M. No. MTJ-06-1623 and A.M. No. 06-1627), the acts of respondent Judge
reveal a flaw in her psychological makeup that disqualifies her from
holding the position of Judge. She appears to be unaware of the
jurisprudence that has given meaning to the power of contempt.

x
x x x

The Order dated 13 October 2004 (Exhibit G, Rollo, p. 27,
A.M. MTJ-06-1623), betrays not only her gross ignorance as regards the Rule
on Contempt of Court, but it also shows her capricious arrogance and despotic
nature, the antithesis of an ideal arbiter. It betrays a flaw in her
psychological makeup that disqualifies her from presiding a court and
dispensing justice.

Respondent inofficiously demanded
that complainant conduct an inquest at the police station for the purpose of
preventing the release of Timoteo Migrino who had earlier been arrested while
allegedly engaged in illegal gambling and had posted the required bail.
Notwithstanding the explanation of complainant Reyes that she was not
authorized to conduct said inquest outside her office and the crime of
malversation allegedly committed two years earlier could not be the proper
subject of an inquest, respondent could not be denied. She demanded and the
police acquiesced to hold Migrino in jail over the weekend.

The prosecution of Prosecutor Reyes
was not based on any law or rule but was purely the whim and caprice of the
respondent. After respondent Judge has held Prosecutor Reyes in contempt
and ordered her arrest (Exhibit [“F”], A[.]M[.] No. MTJ-06-1623, p. 24.) she
required an unconscionable amount of Php236,000.00 as bail knowing that
it was practically impossible to meet.

Complainant R[o]m[a]na R. Reyes
charges respondent Judge with falsification of public documents. It appears
that respondent Judge issued a warrant for the arrest of complainant. Since
no case had been filed against complainant, respondent Judge conveniently
issued the warrant under Criminal Cases Nos. 02164 to 02173 (10 counts) which
pertained to cases filed against various persons during the year 1985. The
Order of 13 October 2004
(Exhibit [“G”], Rollo, A.M. MTJ-06-1623) conveniently omitted to show any case
numbers.

The travails suffered by complainant
Lagdameo likewise prove that respondent Judge was not guided by law or rule but
rather by whim and caprice. The record does not show any reason why respondent
Judge could order the arrest of complainant. Assuming that she had uttered
the words “I am going because I may be declared in contempt”, this could not be
the basis for declaring her in direct contempt because the court was no longer
in session and she ma[d]e the remark outside the courtroom. It was not
“misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt
the proceedings before the same”. Neither could it be considered disrespect
towards the court. It is probably for this reason that respondent Judge did not
issue any commitment order but orally commanded the police to arrest Lagdameo.
As can be seen from excerpts from the police blotter (Rollo, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1627,
p. 9) Lagdameo was “brought in” on December 7, 2004 at 12:30
P.M. and was “released” on December 8, 2004, at 11[:]50 AM (ibid. p. 10).The same blotter states: “Note:
Detained w/o written commitment order & released w/o written released.”
[sic] (Emphasis and italics in the Report)

Respondent’s verbal order
directed to members of the PNP to
arrest and jail Lagdameo who languished in said jail for a day is clearly a
violation of Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code and respondent Judge is a
principal by inducement.

The complaint filed by three
personnel of Br. 69 charges respondent Judge with conduct unbecoming a judge
which could be considered pecadillos and are covered by circulars and other issuances
of the Court and are punished by either fines or suspensions or admonitions.

Considering respondent Judge’s acts
complained of by complainants R[o]mana R. Reyes and Andree K. Lagdameo,
together with the acts committed by respondent Judge and subject of other
administrative cases assigned to the undersigned, there can only be one
conclusion that respondent Judge is suffering from some undiagnosed mental
aberration that makes her totally unfit to hold the position she now occupies. Not
only was her gross ignorance established but her resort to falsification was
also proved.

The records show that respondent
Judge was suspended and has abandoned her office of presiding Judge. She did
this probably because she felt guilty and could not find any justification for
her actions so she fled.

In A.M. No. MTJ-06-1624, the
harassment and ill treatment of complainant Migrino was clearly established.
The fact that respondent Judge followed Migrino to the police station and
demanded that he be kept in custody despite the Order of Release issued by
Judge Morallos upon Migrino’s filing his bail both clearly shows her to be
whimsical and capricious. The continued detention of Migrino after he was
ordered released under bond is likewise arbitrary and in violation of Article
124 of the Revised Penal Code and respondent Judge is a principal by
inducement.

In OCA-IPI No. 04-2048-P, the
record reveals that the respondent Migrino was indicted for illegal gambling
having been allegedly caught en flagrante by complainant Judge
Julia A. Reyes. The record also reveals that a certificate was issued by the Clerk
of Court, MetropolitanTrialCourtofPasigCity that there is no
pending case against Migrino. Even if we assume that the illegal gambling case
which was filed against Migrino and for which he had to file his bond was dismissed,
it still remains that Migrino was seen gambling within the court premises, an
act which is proscribed by Administrative Circular No. 1-99[75]
earlier mentioned.[76] (Emphasis
partly in the original and partly supplied; italics in the original; underscoring
supplied)

Justice Quimbo thereupon recommended that Judge Reyes be dismissed from the service
with forfeiture of all her retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, if
any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of
the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations and that Migriño
be fined in an amount equivalent to his one month salary.

Meanwhile, in A.M. No. MTJ-06-1638,
Justice Quimbo, by Report of September
25, 2006,[77] reiterated
his recommendation after coming up with the following evaluation:

In the present case, she is charged
with ignorance because she had issued a bench warrant against the complainant
and his wife for their failure to appear on a date that respondent Judge fixed
for the continuation of the trial.While
she may be correct in assuming that she had the authority to issue such
warrant, said act was clearly unjustified.Firstly, it does not appear in the record of the case that complainant
or his wife received notice of said hearing.Neither does it appear that their counsel received a copy of the Order
of 15 August 2003
which contained the said setting.Secondly,
there was no longer any trial to speak of because the case had already been
submitted for decision and the complainant (accused therein) had no longer any
need for appearing.[78](Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

THIS COURT’S RULING

The Court finds that Judge Julia Reyes
should indeed be dismissed from the service.

As early as 1949, this Court
emphasized that the administration of justice is a lofty function.

The
administration of justice is a lofty function and is no less sacred than a
religious mission itself. Those who are called upon to render service in it
must follow that norm of conduct compatible only with public faith and trust in
their impartiality, sense of responsibility, exercising the same devotion to
duty and unction done by a priest in the performance of the most sacred
ceremonies of a religious liturgy.[79]

By judges’ appointment to the office, the people have laid on them their
confidence that they are mentally and morally fit to pass upon the merits of their varied contentions.
For this reason, members of the judiciary are expected to be
fearless in their pursuit to render justice, to be unafraid to displease any
person, interest or power, and to be equipped with a moral fiber strong enough
to resist the temptations lurking in their office.[80] Unfortunately,
respondent Judge failed to resist the temptations of power which eventually led
her to transgress the very law she swore to protect and uphold.

To constitute gross ignorance of the
law or procedure, the subject decision, order or actuation of the judge in the
performance of official duties should be contrary to existing law and
jurisprudence.Most importantly, the judge
must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption.[81]

Judge Reyes’ bad faith is clearly apparent from the above-related facts
and circumstances in the consolidated cases. This Court cannot shrug off her
failure to exercise that degree of care and temperance required of a judge in
the correct and prompt administration of justice, more so in these cases where
her exercise of the power of contempt resulted in the detention and deprivation
of liberty of Migriño, Andree, Sebastian and Alicia, and endangered the freedom
of the other complainants. Tiongco v. Salao[82]
is instructive:

Thus,
the carelessness and lack of
circumspection on respondent Judge’s part, to say the least, in peremptorily
ordering the arrest and detention of complainant, warrant the imposition of a
penalty on respondent Judge as a corrective measure, so that she and others
may be properly warned about carelessness in the application of the proper law
and undue severity in ordering the detention of complainant immediately and
depriving him of the opportunity to seek recourse from higher courts against
the summary penalty of imprisonment imposed by respondent Judge.

It is also well-settled that the
power to declare a person in contempt is inherent in all courts so as to
preserve order in judicial proceedings and to uphold the administration of
justice. Judges, however, are enjoined
to exercise such power judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and
with the end view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the
dignity of the court, and not for retaliation or vindication. The
salutary rule is that the power to punish for contempt for purposes that are
impersonal, because that power is intended as a safeguard not for the judges as
persons but for the functions that they exercise. Only occasionally should the
court invoke the inherent power in order to retain that respect without which
the administration of justice must falter or fail.[83]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Being a dispenser of justice, Judge
Reyes, a lady judge at that, should have demonstrated finesse in her choice of
words. In this case, the words used by her
was hardly the kind of circumspect language expected of a magistrate. The use
of vulgar and curt language does not befit the person of a judge who is viewed
by the public as a person of wisdom and scruples.[84] Remarks
such as “Ano kaya kung mag-hearing ako ng hubo’t hubad tapos naka-robe lang, pwede kaya?”; “Hayaan mo, Farah, pag natikman
ko na siya, ipapasa ko sa iyo, ha ha ha!”; and “Alam mo na ang dami intriga dito; nireport ba naman na nakatira ako dito, ano
kaya masama dun? Alam ko staff ko rin nagsumbong eh, PUTANG INA NILA,
PUTANG INA TALAGA NILA!” have no place in the judiciary.

Those who don the
judicial robe must observe judicial decorum which requires magistrates to be at
all times temperate in their language, refraining from inflammatory or
excessive rhetoric or from resorting to the language of vilification.[85]

Judge Reyes failed to
heed this injunction, however.Her inability
to control her emotions her act of walking out of the courtroom during hearings,
and her shouting invectives at her staff and lawyers indicate her unfitness to
sit on the bench. They betray her
failure to exercise judicial temperament at all times, and maintain composure
and equanimity.[86]

Judge Reyes’ questioned actions reflect her lack
of patience, an essential part of dispensing justice; and of courtesy, a mark
of culture and good breeding. Her
demonstrated belligerence and lack of self-restraint and civility have no place
in the government service.[87]

The New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary (New Code of Judicial Conduct), which took effect on
June 1, 2004,mandates:

SEC.
6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court
and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses,
lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. Judges
shall require similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others
subject to their influence, direction or control.[88]

Respecting Judge Reyes’ frequent
nocturnal “gimmicks,” suffice it to state that her presence in the
above-mentioned places impairs the respect due her, which in turn necessarily
affects the image of the judiciary. A judge is a visible representation of the judiciary
and, more often than not, the public cannot separate the judge from the judiciary.
Moreover, her act of bringing some of her staff to her weekday “gimmicks,” that
causes them to be absent or late for work disrupts the speedy administration of
service.She thus also failed to heed the mandate of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct, viz:

SECTION
1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of
their activities.

SEC. 2. As a subject of constant
public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed
as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In
particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with
the dignity of the judicial office.[89]

As for Judge Reyes’ act of borrowing
money from her staff, the same constitutes conduct unbecoming a judge. While
there is nothing wrong per se with
borrowing money, it must be borne in mind that she exerted moral ascendancy
over her staff, who may not have had the means but may have been forced to find
a way in order not to displease her.

Respecting Judge Reyes’ failure to put
into writing her judgment, she having merely required the accused to read it
from the computer screen in camera without
the presence of counsel, she violated the Constitution. She could have simply printed and signed the decision.Offering to a party’s counsel a diskette
containing the decision when such counsel demands a written copy thereof is
unheard of in the judiciary. A verbal judgment is, in contemplation of law, inesse,
ineffective.[91] If
Judge Reyes was not yet prepared to promulgate the decision as it was not yet
printed, she could have called the case later and have it printed first.A party should not be left in the dark on
what issues to raise before the appellate court.

It is a requirement of dueprocess
that the parties to a litigation be informed of how it was decided, with an
explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the
court.The court cannot simply say that
judgment is rendered in favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that
without any justification whatsoever for its action.The losing party is entitled to know why
he lost, so he may appeal to a higher court, if permitted, should he believe
that the decision should be reversed.A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the
law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was
reached and is especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to in
point the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal.[92]

If judges were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond the boundaries within
which they are required by law to exercise the duties of their office, then the
law becomes meaningless. A government of laws excludes the exercise of broad
discretionary powers by those acting under its authority.[93]

In fine, this Court finds Judge Reyes unfit to discharge her
functions as judge.

WHEREFORE, Judge
Julia A. Reyes, Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 69, PasigCity,
is DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits
except accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in
any branch of the government including government-owned or controlled
corporations.

Branch Clerk of Court Timoteo A.
Migriño is, for violation of Administrative Circular No. 1-99, by gambling in
the court premises, FINED in the amount equivalent to his one-month
salary. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same act or the commission of a
similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

[8]September 24, 2004, not September 15, 2004, on the
Consolidated Report of Romulo S. Quimbo.The “Sinumpaang Salaysay” was not attached to the rollo of A.M.
No. MTJ-06- 1623, but can be found in the rollo of A.M. No. P-09-2693 on
page 8.The “Sinumpaang Salaysay” reads:

[9]SEC.
5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a)When in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;

(b)
When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and

(c)
When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.

In
cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and
shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.

[14]VideCertification dated October 27, 2004 issued by
Atty. Reynaldo V. Bautista, Clerk of Court IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, MeTC
of Pasig City (rollo, A.M. No.MTJ-06-1623, p. 25.). Prosecutor Reyes described the warrant as
“highly questionable” because (1) there were no Case Nos. 02164 up to 02173
which were filed on October 1, 2004, and said numbers pertain to criminal cases
filed in the year 1985; (2) no case, civil or criminal, had been filed against
her per Certification of the Office of the Clerk of Court, MeTC of Pasig City;
(3) The minutes of the October 11, 2004 hearing do not contain any order
calling for the issuance of the warrant of arrest; and (4) no Case Nos. 02164
to 02173 were scheduled on that date (rollo, p. 21).

[70]Sec. 1.Judgment; definition and
form.–
Judgment is the adjudication by the court that the accused is guiltyor not guilty of the offense charged and the
imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil liability, if any.It must be written in the official language,
personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall
contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which
it it is based.

Sec. 2.Contents of the judgment. –If the judgment is of conviction, it shall state (1) the legal
qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the accused
and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances which attended its commission;
(2) the participation of the accused in the offense, whether as principal,
accomplice, or accessory after the fact; (3) the penalty imposed upon the
accused; and (4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or
omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is
any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action
has been reserved or waived.

In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall
state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the
guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from
which the civil liability might arise did not exist.

[71]Sec.
14.No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
on which it is based.

No petition for review or motion for
reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or
denied without stating the legal basis therefor.